Fastening tools are generally known in the art. Often these tools are specific to one type of fastener such that multiple devices are required to fasten different types (i.e., sizes and shapes) of fasteners. Alternatively, some tools have components designed to be removed and exchanged in order to reconfigure the tool in accommodating different sizes and/or shapes, such as, for example, those described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,089,827 to Wexler and U.S. Pat. No. 4,171,651 to Dacunto.
Other devices allow for the manual reconfiguration of the tool to select one of two available outputs, such as that described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,062,992 to Spirer, or again to provide access to different work implements, such as that described in U.S. Pat. No. 3,783,955 to Gill.
Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 2,482,387 to Veneman describes a tool comprised of oppositely rotatable sockets allowing for the same tool to be shifted in selectively tightening and reversing a nut on a bolt, whereas U.S. Pat. No. 4,942,794 to Snyder et al. describes a torqueing tool adapted to tighten threaded connections to precise torque values, wherein a pair of output gears are mounted on a pair of spaced nuts and wherein a selected one of the nuts is tightened by utilizing the non-selected nut as a reaction element.
The above and other such fastening devices have several drawbacks, which will be readily apparent to the person of ordinary skill in the art, be it with respect to the limited interoperability of these tools for different applications, with other tools and/or with different types of fasteners, with respect to the limited adaptability of such tools for full or partial automation (e.g. automated manufacturing cycles, etc.), and/or with respect to other tool usage considerations readily understood in the art, to name a few.
Accordingly, the need remains for a fastening device that overcomes some of these drawbacks, or at least, provides the public with a useful alternative.
This background information is provided to reveal information believed by the applicant to be of possible relevance to the present invention. No admission is necessarily intended, nor should be construed, that any of the preceding information constitutes prior art against the present invention.